Johnny McMurry, Jr. v. Neiders Company LLC, et al.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
W.D. Washington · Aug 14, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court admonished the pro se plaintiff for citing a non-existent case in his briefing. The judge explicitly warned the plaintiff that he is responsible for the accuracy of all submissions and that repeating such a transgression could subject him to Rule 11 sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the plaintiff is responsible for the accuracy of all submissions and that citing non-existent authority violates the standards expected of litigants, warranting an admonishment and a warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Court admonished plaintiff for citing a non-existent case and warned of potential Rule 11 sanctions; no sanction imposed. in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
In a pro se employment discrimination suit, the plaintiff submitted briefing containing a citation to a non-existent case. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington identified the error, admonished the plaintiff for failing to ensure the accuracy of his submissions, and issued a warning regarding potential Rule 11 sanctions for future transgressions. The court emphasized that litigants are responsible for the accuracy of all materials filed with the court. The underlying motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend, but the court's specific intervention regarding the fabricated citation serves as a procedural warning regarding the duty of candor and the risks associated with unverified research in legal filings.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Court admonished plaintiff for citing a non-existent case and warned of potential Rule 11 sanctions; no sanction imposed. in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
AI tool read from the primary court record (2026-10-26): open the court record.
What the record establishes about AI use
The source document does not name a tool, but the context of a fabricated citation implies the use of generative AI.
Order on motion to dismiss in a federal civil employment discrimination action.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case in his briefing (Dkt. No. 17 at 6); the Court noted the citation was non-existent, admonished Plaintiff, and warned of possible Rule 11 sanctions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Johnny McMurry, Jr. v. Neiders Company LLC, et al.?
- The court admonished the pro se plaintiff for citing a non-existent case in his briefing. The judge explicitly warned the plaintiff that he is responsible for the accuracy of all submissions and that repeating such a transgression could subject him to Rule 11 sanctions.
- Why does Johnny McMurry, Jr. v. Neiders Company LLC, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Court admonished plaintiff for citing a non-existent case and warned of potential Rule 11 sanctions; no sanction imposed. in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Johnny McMurry, Jr. v. Neiders Company LLC, et al.?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Johnny McMurry, Jr. v. Neiders Company LLC, et al. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.
This record mentions Rule 11. See Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations for the rule text and counts across the corpus.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.